About

COMMON BELIEFS

﻿
IntroductionRegarding to the notes, Common beliefs may treats as the same the way to support some evaluative statement, that never be used to argue the accuracy of most statements of verification. Those fallacies are called to opinion, to belief, and to popular beliefs also the feeling of people. Such as the faith or the religion what they belief, or some “facts” that we see as common sense. For example, The world is round, or thermal expansion and contraction. Moreover, some slogan may become common belief too. Just like “Never Give Up” or “treasure our life”. Since humans behave by following their personal beliefs and common sense. No matter what cultural background people came from, common sense will be very similar between people and person. Also the common sense what people beliefs are often wrong. Maybe it as supported by everyone, so that no one will believe it’s wrong.

ContentCommon sense, as defined by the some website, is innate rational thinking that occurs organically in rational humans. Common sense involves thinking and problem-solving skills developed from intuition, natural logic and the human ability to observe events and absorb information and lessons from them. These observations allow you to learn from experience and thus to hone and implement sound judgment. You use common sense to approach and attempt to solve problems in day-to-day life. Every human being gains and uses common sense to apply impartial, unbiased and responsible logical decisions. Common sense is something that comes to you naturally, its like and instinct, critical thinking is when you take a question or a problem and analyze every aspect of it. Common sense is dependent of the culture and tradition.

Critical thinking occurs when a person deliberately examines a situation based on his own knowledge and philosophies. Critical thinking involves judging a situation based on studied reasoning, where the person intentionally and consciously focuses on a subject. The quality of critical thinking is based on how sound the eventual judgment of a situation is. Critical thinking allows for planning, calculating, investigating and explaining; you use it for situations that require a larger degree of concentration and deliberation. Critical Thinking is 'rational optimization' of 'rational' aspects. It provides a 'rational' optimum, for instance not considering most emotional aspects. And it often ignores most cultural differences. Albert Einstein famously said "Common Sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." The purpose of Common Sense is to enable one to function "well" inside the society - that is, its purpose is to provide a framework for making the "proper" decision when faced with a commonly occurring problem or issue.

As I mentioned before, common sense is, by definition, a sound conclusion. Critical thinking, on the other hand, can be either sound or unsound. Mistakes in logic can be made through critical thinking. Critics are not always right, and their conclusions can be colored by their own prejudices. The differences between common sense and critical thinking are lies in the levels of awareness at which both consciousness and critical thinking operate. Critical thinking always occurs at a conscious level, whereas common sense occurs on a liminal level of thought, which the Plus Roots website calls "a workaday consciousness." Although critical thinking and common sense require different levels of awareness and consciousness to operate, both methods are rational in their arguments. Both must adhere to some logical form and logical requirements.

How about common beliefs? Actually is quite easy to explain. Give as example, When we are uncertain about something, we turn to other people and assume they know what they are doing. We do the same with beliefs. The more other people believe something, the more likely we will be to accept that it is true. The point is that using popular opinions to...

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

...BAFOKENG SEKALELI TOK ESSAY
CAN WE HAVE BELIEFS OR KNOWLEDGE WHICH ARE INDEPENDENT OF OUR CULTURE?
The main aim of the essay is to find out if we have beliefs or rather knowledge which are independent of our culture. To do my investigation, I am going to follow different areas of beliefs and culture that I need. Culture is roughly perhaps a range of activities which are cultivated as a pattern of behaviour in a group of humans over time, and the manifest fruits of that behaviour. This would presumably include manifestations like the arts as well as structural behaviours such as organisational ethics.
The next thing to do is to look at the word, independent. These days, it implies separation or lack of relation between two entities. It can also mean that there is no clear relationship and hence we can imagine the two entities in this case to be culture and beliefs/knowledge to have little to do with each other. Belief is faith, trust or theory that doesn’t need corroboration or evidence. Also, a belief is a system of thought that is compromised of the information we have accumulated and stored in our brains. Collectively this provides a worldview and mechanism by which we interpret new information and assess how our experience in the world should be managed. What is important to understand is that such a belief does not have any...

...Justin Coiscou PHI 332
Course Paper
What is wrong the claim that knowledge is true judgment (or belief)?
What is knowledge? What is truth? How can we really know for sure if one judgment holds more truth than another? My theory of knowledge is information passed on from one person to the next. Before I am able to answer the above questions I have asked, the question of this idea that is true knowledge must be defined first. Knowledge can be any new piece of information that I come across daily. The coin phrase “you learn something new everyday” came from the most modest definition of knowledge that I know. So simple it does sound that knowledge is information. A person can have more knowledge than the next and that is how knowledge is spread around. It is up to me to decide if what I hear is truly knowledge. It is up to my on belief or judgment of what is said to me. The claim that knowledge is true judgment is not even true itself. It is impossible to know all truths and impossible to trust that everything I hear is true even if I judge it that way.
The Ideas of knowledge and belief go together very well. My theory that knowledge is new information can not be possible without what I am hearing to either be true or false and it is up to me to judge it to be either true or false. If I believe it to be true does not always mean it is true, rather meaning whoever spoke this to me was very...

...TOK Essay
Jeana Joy Tan
Belief has been described as “certainty about what cannot be seen”. Does this statement hold true any, some or all areas of knowledge?
Over the years, philosophers have tried to grapple with the concepts of belief, certainty and knowledge. Despite numerous controversial claims and arguments that come from both sides, we have yet to come upon a general consensus. However, the contention here is that belief can contribute to all areas of knowledge.
Even though belief can be associated with all areas of knowledge, it is a complex concept that exists in different degrees and preconditions. Therefore not all kinds of beliefs can contribute to knowledge as there are certain limitations we need to be aware of. Just as how children believe in Santa Claus, tooth fairies and Easter bunnies, a baseless belief is one that cannot contribute to any areas of knowledge because it does not necessarily require any epistemic logic or reasoning. One only needs to believe something to be true based on almost any form of justification or none at all as Jean-Paul Sartre once said, “I confused things with their names: that is belief.” World War II, the Crusades and the 9/11 are glaring examples of the monstrous atrocities that can be committed when one believes in something without any moral common sense. This is of course, not an attack on...

...Prompt: In your own words explain the distinction being made between belief and knowledge in the given dialogue. Then explain what the importance of this distinction is.
In Gorgias, Plato uses a conversation between two men to lay the groundwork for knowledge and belief, suggesting that everything is subjective when it comes to these words, and their definitions are open for much interpretation past their most simplest of meanings. Gorgias is meant as a guideline in which we can decide whether or not an object, idea, or event is belief or knowledge. So you ask: What are the distinctions between belief and knowledge? Knowledge is experienced, reasoned, proved, accepted, learned, and then understood while belief is faith in something that does not have to be true. So for the sake of simplicity, knowledge is public and belief is private.
In the conversation, the two men bring up two distinct points that must be addressed: the difference between belief and knowledge and the two kinds of convictions that stem from them (The Republic). Despite agreeing with their concluded distinction that there are such things as true and false beliefs but only true knowledge, my view on the convictions of these concepts is quite different from that of Socrates and Gorgias (Gorgias). They conclude that there exist two types of conviction: that of which contains proven knowledge...

...Wittgenstein on Religious Belief
INTRODUCTION
Religious belief and practices are human universals. There are no atheist communities and, as far as we know, there never have been. Even within the most secular societies on Earth, the countries of Western Europe, many people are religious to at least some extent, holding certain supernatural beliefs (such as life after death) or engaging in certain religious practices (such as prayer). And in the rest of the world- in Asia, Africa, and the Americas, for instance-religious rituals and ideas are at the core of people’s day-to-day lives. Thus in one way or the other, most people adhere to a particular religious tradition from which perspective, they make sense of human existence and the whole cosmos at large. However, there had also been serious people in the history of thought, who candidly professed their non-affiliation with any religious tradition, yet on the side, willingly admit that they share some form of religious sympathy. The American poet and philosopher George Santayana (1863-1952) is for one, and another is the Austrian philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951) who though admitting that he’s not a religious man, uttered that “I cannot help seeing every problem from a religious point of view.”
Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein was born on April 26, 1889 in Vienna, Austria, to a wealthy industrial family, well-situated in intellectual and cultural Viennese circles. His...

...
Knowledge and Justified Belief
Knowledge and Justified Belief
What is knowledge? This is the question we used to be sure of according to Plato’s theory of recollection, which tells that the knowledge is the justified belief; if this belief is true, then there is some fact make the proposition for this belief to be true; since the belief is justified by some evidence; therefore people comes up with the standard analysis of knowledge. This idea has been generally agreed till Edmund Gettier came up with the article questioning if knowledge is the justified true belief. Gettier provides two cases wherein intuitively the subject gains a justified true belief does not equal to knowledge. By contrast, Gettier’s arguments indicate the situation in which someone has a belief that is both true and well supported by evidence but fails to be knowledge. That is, it is sufficient and necessary to have belief, truth and justification to define knowledge as in classical theory, yet, the Gettier’s theory by questioning knowledge that justifiably believe one of the true proposition and dismiss the other is necessary and sufficient add-on to the classical theory to redefine knowledge.
First of all, according to Plato’s theory of knowledge, that knowledge is justified true belief, or as Gettier concluded Plato’s classical theory...

...Religious Belief System
REL/330
Religious Belief System
A belief system is a system that is an opinion which determines how we interact with every aspect of out life. Your belief is something that is stored deep into your subconscious mind that will either give you the drive you need to succeed or tell you that it is ok to fail. Religion is a particular type of belief system, but not all belief systems are religion. Telling the difference between religious from non-religious belief systems can be easy at times, but can be difficult as well. A belief system can cover a variety of situations that may overlap with some religions. There can be a belief system that feels you should give any monies you can spare to support the particular entity ad everyone knows that is in common with Christianity that fully believes in tithing. (Cline, 2006)
The beliefs that I have make up a religious belief system because I was taught from the bible since I can remember. I am from the typical southern Baptist environment. My family would rise every Sunday morning and walk to the local church to worship, praise God, and fork over all the money we could afford. I never really understood why we gave what little we could spare to a church where...

...Argumentative Essay on “The Ethics of Belief” PHIL 2641 Online – Section 001 February 13, 2008
William K. Clifford sets out to show in “The Ethics of Belief” that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence…” In this paper, I will show that his argument lacks key definitions needed in order to found his inference upon and that it begs the question as to what qualifies as “insufficient” evidence. Furthermore, I will show that the primary issue is not the belief but the results of the belief that is important and that all judgment and interpretation should be based upon said results.
Clifford introduces his argument by using the example of a shipbuilder who allows his ship to be used on a transoceanic voyage despite its age and the supposed need for repair. The vessel sinks and Clifford asserts that the ship owner is guilty of the death of the passengers because his belief in the ship’s seaworthiness was unsupported and ill-founded. However, there are several problems with his conclusion. First, Clifford ignores the ship owner’s reliance on the vessel’s past sailing history as being sufficient evidence as to its stable condition. The fact that the vessel had made many a voyage without incident can be viewed as sufficient proof of its ability to set sail safely. This begs the question, “How can one determine what constitutes sufficient evidence?” The...